Ubuntu aims for ten-second boot time with 10.04 (ars Technica)
Ubuntu aims for ten-second boot time with 10.04 (ars Technica)
Posted Jun 11, 2009 18:32 UTC (Thu) by mjthayer (guest, #39183)Parent article: Ubuntu aims for ten-second boot time with 10.04 (ars Technica)
Posted Jun 11, 2009 23:49 UTC (Thu)
by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)
[Link] (4 responses)
Here's the question I can't find an answer to. What desktop related processes are in the target 10sec boot budget. The Ubuntu budget gives 4 seconds to login and get to an idle desktop. What's running by default on that idle desktop? Not just applications..but desktop elements like applets that exist as separate processes.
You boot up, you autologin..and the desktop comes up. How rich is the desktop experience that can be achieved in 4 seconds to reach idle cpu and disk io? Does the target desktop you can get to in 4 seconds a real world usage pattern? How quickly does that achievable boot time decay once you start using the desktop and changing settings so the default desktop is useful?
Hell just throwing image files onto your desktop for nautilus to render preview images of could significantly put you over the budget. Is Ubuntu still setting its Download folder in xdg to the Desktop?
Obviously this sort of benchmark has to be a non-networking active target. Just searching for wireless networks can take that long and will keep you out of the target idle state.
-jef
Posted Jun 12, 2009 14:43 UTC (Fri)
by james_w (guest, #51167)
[Link] (3 responses)
The budget is to get to a clean image of the default Ubuntu desktop.
> Does the target desktop you can get to in 4 seconds a real world usage pattern?
... so yes.
> How quickly does that achievable boot time decay once you start using
The default desktop is useful.
Obviously if you start changing things then the time taken to log in will change. How much it changes depends on what alterations you make.
The target of this work is to make Ubuntu boot faster. The budget is for the default configuration running on the target platform, so that is the only place you can be sure to see 10 second boot. Anywhere else it will be faster, but you can't count on 10s.
If adding particular things to the desktop adds more time to the login sequence than it should then that can be fixed as well, but the focus of this effort is to gain a quick, consistent, maintainable baseline. Not to try and ensure that every machine, in any configuration, can boot in 10 seconds.
The aim isn't to game the system. Scott has always said that the timings will always be to a particular point, and that doing certain things, like delaying the startup of some services for a few minutes are not acceptable. The aim isn't just to get a headline boot speed, but the ensure that the boot process is as well engineered as possible. Much of the work done for 9.04 was removing some unneeded things from the startup sequence, such as trying to set the hardware clock at multiple points.
This means that the improvements will rarely come at the cost of increasing the cost of adding one more thing to the log in sequence. Unlike some systems, the gains won't be achieved a by carving out lots of things that aren't needed in the target configuration, everything should still work the same as before, it will just get there more quickly.
Thanks,
James
Posted Jun 12, 2009 14:54 UTC (Fri)
by mjthayer (guest, #39183)
[Link]
Seconded, I use the default desktop as my standard working environment. I dislike wasting time with unneeded customisation, and I want to be able to get from a clean install to my working environment as quickly as possible if ever needed - and the default Ubuntu desktop does what I need it to.
Posted Jun 12, 2009 16:28 UTC (Fri)
by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)
[Link] (1 responses)
I thought the budget was to an idle desktop.. idle disk..idle cpu. idle disk and idle cpu is slightly more aggressive than "get to a".
I can use a desktop that is still churning disk and cpu rendering file thumbnail images sitting on the Desktop. But that's not an idle target.
Does "clean" have a specific meaning in the context of the stated "idle" desktop that needs to be explicitly defined? Because its not used in the announcement email.
"The default desktop is useful"
You missed the main point I was trying to make. How long does a default "clean" desktop.. stay "clean" when its actually in use? Even when someone does not change any settings. Does having a list of "Recent Documents" significantly degrade the speed of the GNOME panel loading? If Ubuntu is still pointing xdg download directory to the desktop, does having things like thumbnail images to render of downloaded files severely degrade bootup? It's not just about the first boot after a fresh install. It's about the consistency of boot times when the user has made absolutely no settings changes. I think in particular the Desktop as download directory xdg setting that Ubuntu carries will make it difficult for that 4 second "idle" desktop budget into the Gnome desktop to be achievable outside of the very special conditions of a fresh desktop that has seen little or no internet usage.
-jef
Posted Jun 12, 2009 17:12 UTC (Fri)
by james_w (guest, #51167)
[Link]
By clean I meant "fresh install".
> You missed the main point I was trying to make.
No, I chose to take a shot at your wording. After that sentence I spoke to the rest of your concerns.
> I think in particular the Desktop as download directory xdg setting that
As I said, the budgets are for a fresh install on the target platform. The aim is not to ensure that every Ubuntu desktop on every system loads in 4 seconds, as great as that would be.
> Does having a list of "Recent Documents" significantly degrade the speed
If they do then we should look at fixing them.
Trying to provide a good base on which we can build doesn't mean that we won't try and fix other issues. We don't have to fix all performance issues in order to get some benefit.
The 10s target is a known state, a fresh install, on a single platform for consistency, so that it is easily repeatable. Once that is done it might be nice to have secondary targets that provide more "real world" setups. It's easy for anyone to profile their particular sequence and help to trim the fat though, so you don't need the same control over the platform and image, and time targets aren't useful, they are essentially arbitrary anyway.
Thanks,
James
Ubuntu aims for ten-second boot time with 10.04 (ars Technica)
Ubuntu aims for ten-second boot time with 10.04 (ars Technica)
> processes are in the target 10sec boot budget. The Ubuntu budget gives 4
> seconds to login and get to an idle desktop. What's running by default on
> that idle desktop? Not just applications..but desktop elements like
> applets that exist as separate processes.
> the desktop and changing settings so the default desktop is useful?
Ubuntu aims for ten-second boot time with 10.04 (ars Technica)
Ubuntu aims for ten-second boot time with 10.04 (ars Technica)
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2009-June/...
Ubuntu aims for ten-second boot time with 10.04 (ars Technica)
> desktop that needs to be explicitly defined? Because its not used in the
> announcement email.
> Ubuntu carries will make it difficult for that 4 second "idle" desktop
> budget into the Gnome desktop to be achievable outside of the very
> special conditions of a fresh desktop that has seen little or no
> internet usage.
> of the GNOME panel loading? If Ubuntu is still pointing xdg download
> directory to the desktop, does having things like thumbnail images to
> render of downloaded files severely degrade bootup?